From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
"David Daney" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:33:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160203083338.GA1772@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160202193037.GQ10166@arm.com>
* Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:06:36AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given that the vast majority of weakly ordered architectures respect
> > > address dependencies, I would expect all of them to be hurt if they
> > > were forced to use barrier instructions instead, even those where the
> > > microarchitecture is fairly strongly ordered in practice.
> >
> > I do wonder if it would be all that noticeable, though. I don't think
> > we've really had benchmarks.
> >
> > For example, most of the RCU list traversal shows up on x86 - where
> > loads are already acquires. But they show up not because of that, but
> > because a RCU list traversal is pretty much always going to take the
> > cache miss.
> >
> > So it would actually be interesting to just try it - what happens to
> > kernel-centric benchmarks (which are already fairly rare) on arm if we
> > change the rcu_dereference() to be a smp_load_acquire()?
> >
> > Because maybe nothing happens at all. I don't think we've ever tried it.
>
> FWIW, and this is by no means conclusive, I hacked that up quickly and ran
> hackbench a few times on the nearest idle arm64 system. The results were
> consistently ~4% slower using acquire for rcu_dereference.
Could you please double check that? The thing is that hackbench is a _notoriously_
unstable workload and very dependent on various small details such as kernel image
layout and random per-bootup cache/memory layouts details.
In fact I'd suggest to test this via a quick runtime hack like this in rcupdate.h:
extern int panic_timeout;
...
if (panic_timeout)
smp_load_acquire(p);
else
typeof(*p) *________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)lockless_dereference(p);
(or so)
and then you can start a loop of hackbench runs, and in another terminal change
the ordering primitive via:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # smpload_acquire()
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # smp_read_barrier_depends()
without having to reboot the kernel.
Also, instead of using hackbench which has a too short runtime that makes it
sensitive to scheduling micro-details, you could try the perf-bench hackbench
work-alike where the number of loops is parametric:
triton:~/tip> perf bench sched messaging -l 10000
# Running 'sched/messaging' benchmark:
# 20 sender and receiver processes per group
# 10 groups == 400 processes run
Total time: 4.532 [sec]
and you could get specific numbers of noise estimations via:
triton:~/tip> perf stat --null --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -l 10000
[...]
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -l 10000' (10 runs):
4.616404309 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.67% )
note that even with a repeat count of 10 runs and a loop count 100 times larger
than the hackbench default, the intrinsic noise of this workload was still 1.6% -
and that does not include boot-to-boot systematic noise.
It's very easy to get systemic noise with hackbench workloads and go down the
entirely wrong road.
Of course, the numbers might also confirm your 4% figure!
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-03 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-12 12:31 [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock() Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 13:31 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 14:50 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 17:46 ` David Daney
2015-11-12 18:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 18:13 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 18:17 ` David Daney
2016-01-27 9:57 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-27 11:43 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 12:41 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-28 1:11 ` Boqun Feng
2016-01-27 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-27 15:21 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-28 9:57 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-28 22:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-29 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-29 10:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-01 13:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 3:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 5:19 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 6:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 8:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 8:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 9:34 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 17:51 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 19:30 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-03 19:13 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 8:33 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-02-03 13:32 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 19:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 11:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-09 11:42 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 22:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 14:49 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 14:54 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 14:58 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 15:51 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 17:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-02 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 11:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:12 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 13:18 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:37 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160203083338.GA1772@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@imgtec.com \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.